R. P. NIGAM, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-7-1980 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 477 of 1978 State v. Dwarka and others, by which the appellants Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu were con victed under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 148, I. P. C. and were sentenced to life im prisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprison ment under Section 324, I. P. C. read with/section 149, I. P. C. and the appellants Ram Khilavan, Nattha and Babu and Chhanga wire convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C, Section 147, I. P. C and Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprisonment under Sec tion 147, I. P. C. and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. It was also ordered that the sentences of each accused would run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution as dis closed in the real report Ex. Ka. 1 lodged by Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 in the police station Intauja district Lucknow on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30a. m. is as follows:- "smt. Roop Rani, wife of Manohar Lal, is resident of village Kandhaipur hamlet of Kum-harawa and she has a daughter whose name is Raj Kishori and who is aged 8 years and she has a son aged 3 years from her said husband on the night of 16/17-8-1977, she her husband and her children were sleeping in the courtyard of the house and a lantern was burning in Tarwaha as it used to burn daily and at about mid- night her neighbour Dwarka Ahir had said from Darwaza that "manohar your cow has released herself form the peg and he should tie her. " Upon this Roop Rani got her husband awaken and had told him that Dwarka had said that cow had released herself from the peg and he should tie the cow and that is why her husband opened the main door and then Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Ram Khilavan, Sohan Lal, Nattha and Nand Ram of the village and Babu Ahir of the village Manka Khera and Chhanga brother- of-law looser of Sohan Lal of village Kurwa with Banka, Karoli, Lathi an Danda entered in her house and she stood up and her husband ran towards the Kothari and the said persons had started assaulting him. She raised alarm and reached near her husband in order to save him an then all the persons had assaulted her by Karoli and Sohan Lal, Nand Ram and Ram Khilavan had caught hold of her and the said persons killed her husband inside Tarwaha and on her alarm, Jawala and Mathura of the village had reached there and these persons had seen the said persons coming out from the house. Chheda, uncle of Roop Rani had called Nanha who was her Bhanja (nephew) to give his proper ty to him and subsequently he gave his property to her by executing a will. Ram Nath and Jhabhu were helpers of Nanha and previously also these persons had entered in the house and assaulted and in respect of which a case is opening and she has old enmity with the said persons and on account of this enmity, Ram Nath and others had slain her husband. She had left the dead body of her husband in the supervision of her uncle Chheda and had gone to the police station to lodge the report and lodged the report there. " 3. On the basis of the oral report, Ex. Ka-1 a case against the appellants and two acquitted accused was registered at report No. 15 of the G. D. on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. under Sections 147,148,302,323 and 452, I. P. C. whose copy is Ex. Ka-2. 4. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 was posted as Station Officer in police station Intauja district Lucknow in August, 1977. The report of this case was lodged in the police station in his absence on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. under Sections 147,148,302,323 and 452, I. P. C. whose copy is Ex. Ka-2. 4. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 was posted as Station Officer in police station Intauja district Lucknow in August, 1977. The report of this case was lodged in the police station in his absence on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. and information of this report was sent to him in village Ram Purwa through constables Gaya Dutt Pandcy and Maiku Lal along with papers and he at once proceeded for the place of occur rence and he found the dead body of Manohar Lal inside his house. He ap pointed Panchas and prepared Panchayat-nama Ex. Ka-4. He also prepared photo lash Ex. Ka-5, Challan lash Ex. Ka-6, letter Ex. Ka-7 and sample of seal Ex. Ka-8. He scaled the dead body and had sent the dead body along with necessary papers through constable Gaya Dutt Pandey for post-mor tem examination. After that he recorded the statement of Raj Kishori, daughter of the deceased and other witnesses and on the same day he recorded the statement of Smt. Roop Rani when she came back after her medical examination. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-9, he had taken the blood-stained clothes of the deceased in his possession and sealed them and prepared a memo in respect of that which is Ex. Ka-10. He had taken the blood-stained earth and ordinary earth in his possession from the place of occur rence and sealed them separately and prepared memo Ex. Ka-11 in respect of that. He found the blood on the door (Kiwar) and got the portion of the kiwar cut on which blood was and sealed it and prepared a meno Ex. Ka-12 in respect of that accused Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Ram Khilavan, Sohan Lal, Nattha and Chhanga were arrested an they were brought to the police station and Gotendra Pal Singh (P. W. 5) on 26-8-1977 had arrested the accused Nand Kumar and had interrogated him and on 20-8- 1977 the accused Babu was arrested and was brought to the police station and there he was interrogated by him. He after comple tion of the investigation laid charge-sheet Ex. Ka-13 against the accused. 5. He after comple tion of the investigation laid charge-sheet Ex. Ka-13 against the accused. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants and the two acquitted accused examined Smt. Roop Rani as P. W. 1, Raj Kishori as P. W. 2, Ganga Bux Singh as P. W. 3, Dr. Krishna Kumar Singhal as P. W. 4, Gotendra Pal Singh as P. W. 5, Dr. D. Y Singh as P. W. 6, Mohd. Rauf as P. W. 7 out of these witnesses "roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 are the witnesses of fact. The prosecution had also led documentary evidence. 6. The appellants and two acquitted accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty. The appellants Dwarka stated that Manohar Lal Din Dayal were real brothers and Din Dayal had illegal connection with the wife of Manohar Lal and now wife of Manohar Lal lives with Din Dayal and he and others had prohibited Din Dayal at Din Dayal and Roop Rani had felt and Manohar Lal was the second husband of Roop Rani. He further stated that Chheda was uncle of Roop Rani and he gave his property to Nanha. Appellants Ram Khilavan, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Nattha, Babu, Chhanga stated that the case had been filed against them on account of enmity and the witnesses had deposed against them on account of enmity. The appellants had led evidence in their defence. 7. Appellants Ram Khilavan, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Nattha, Babu, Chhanga stated that the case had been filed against them on account of enmity and the witnesses had deposed against them on account of enmity. The appellants had led evidence in their defence. 7. The learned Court below after con sidering the evidence adduced by the par ties had held that the appellants Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu were guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 324 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and Section 148, I. P. C. and they were convicted accordingly under the said sec tions and they were sentenced to imprison ment for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I. P. C. and appellants Ram Khilavan, Nat tha, Babu and Chhanga were quality of the offence, punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. , Section 324, I. P. C. read with Sections 149 and 147, I. P. C. and these appellants were convicted under the said sections and were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. , 1 years rigorous imprisonment under Sec tion 147, I. P. C. and 1 years rigorous im prisonment under Section 324, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and it was ordered that the sentences of each appellant would run concurrently. The accused Sohan Lal and Nand Ram were given to benefit of doubt and they were acquitted of the offen ces with which they were charged. Against the judgment and order dated 11-7- 1980 the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 8. Ganga Bux Singh P. W. 3 is a formal witness. He wrote oral report Ex. Ka-1 on the dictation of the complainant Smt. Roop Rani. 9. Dr. Krishan Kumar Shinghal R W. 4, was posted as medical officer in Civil Hospital, Lucknow on 18-8- 1977 and on this day at 1. 00 p. m. he did the necroscopy of the dead body of the deceased Manohar Lal and prepare post-mortem report Ex. Ka-3. Ka-1 on the dictation of the complainant Smt. Roop Rani. 9. Dr. Krishan Kumar Shinghal R W. 4, was posted as medical officer in Civil Hospital, Lucknow on 18-8- 1977 and on this day at 1. 00 p. m. he did the necroscopy of the dead body of the deceased Manohar Lal and prepare post-mortem report Ex. Ka-3. He found the following ante-morterm injuries on the dead body of Manohar Lal. 1. Kata ghav 7 x 3/4 cm x 2 1/2 cm ooper niche disha mein sar ke samne baayen bhaag par nak ki jar se 61/2 cmooper. 2. Kata ghav 6 x 3/4 x 20 cm dahne pichhle sar par pari aari disha mein daahini mor se 1 cm ooper. 3. Kata ghav 4x1/2x21/4 cm dahne pichhle sai par-daahine kaan se 5 1/2 cm piche khari aari disha mein. 4. Kata ghav 6x3/4x2 1/2 cm khari aari dishaen sar ke pichhle bhaag mein, chot No. 3 se 5 cm pichhe. 5. Kata ghav 4 1/2 x 3/4 x 2 3/4 cm baye ooper sar par khari aari disha mein chot No. 4 se 2cmbaaintaraf. 6. Chithra ghav 2 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 2 cm bayen mor ke ooper tatha dayen nichhle mathe per pari aari disha mein. 7. Kata ghav2x l/2x 1 cm dahne ooper gal per pari aari disha mein dahne nicchle palak se 1 1/2 cm niche. 8. Kata ghav 18 x 1 1/2 x 5 cm dhahne mukh par-nak ki jar se-dahne gardn ke bahri nichle bhaag tak-pari aari dishaen-Is ghav ke antargat dahni Maxilla hadd: tatha dahne man dible ka oopari bhag kat gaya hai. 9. Kataghav 19x2x5 1/2 cm, dahne mukh par-pari aari disha mein, dahni nichli, naak se dahni gardan tak chot No. 8 se 3/4 cm. niche is ghav ke niche dahni mandible haddi ka oopari bhaag kat gaya hai. 10. Kata ghav 14 x 2 3/4 x 5 cm dahne nichle mukh par pari aari disha mein-dahne baahri mukh se dahni taraf bahri garden ke bich tak chot No. 9 se 11/2 cm niche. 11. Kata ghav 4 1/2 x 1 x 1 1/2 cm dahne nichle jabre ke baahre bhaag par pari aari dishain. Haddi kati hai (mendible ). 12. Kata ghav 3 1/2 cm x 3/4 x 1 1/2 cm dahne thuddi par niche haddi kati hai, Ghav pari-aari dishain. 13. 11. Kata ghav 4 1/2 x 1 x 1 1/2 cm dahne nichle jabre ke baahre bhaag par pari aari dishain. Haddi kati hai (mendible ). 12. Kata ghav 3 1/2 cm x 3/4 x 1 1/2 cm dahne thuddi par niche haddi kati hai, Ghav pari-aari dishain. 13. Kata ghav 6 x 12 1/2 cm baayen nichle mukh par pari-aari dishain-baayen mukhke baahri taraf. 14. Bhonkata kata ghav 0. 8 x 0. 4 x 2. 5 cm; bayen nichle mukh par- ghav No. 13 se 1 cm ooper. 15. Bhonkata kata ghav 1 x 0. 5 x 3 cm. Bayen nichle mukh par-ghav No. 14 se 1 cm under ki taraf. 16. Kata ghav 11/2 cm x 3/4 x 1 cm bayen bahri thuddi par khari aari dishain, chot No. 13 se 1 cm niche. 17. Kata ghav 8 x 2 1/2 x 6 cm bayen kandhey ke oppari bahri tahaag par-aage pichhe disha-niche hupas haddi kati hai. 18. Kata ghav 7 x 2 x 4 1/2 cm aage piche aari dishain bayen bahri oopari kandhe par chot No. 17koasakattahua. 19. Nilgu chot 2 1/2 x 1 cm bayen oopari kandhey par samne hansli ke haddi se 2 cm niche-pari-aari dishaen. 20. Nilgu chot 5x2 cm, pari aari dishaen-bayen saamne sar par-bayen chot se 2 1/2 cm ooper. 21. Bahut se nilgu choten-pari aari dishain-ek doosre ke ooper 14 x 7 cm kashetra mein. Samanantar jaise-bayen oopri kandhey tatha bayen oopari bahu per samne. 22. Patla kata ghav 6 cm lamba pan aari dishain bayen bahu par samne bich men-kohni se 6 cm ooper. 23. Patla kata ghav 3 cm lamba pari aari disha men agra bahu men bayin kalai se 10 1/2 cm. ooper. 24. Nilgu chot 11/2 cm x 1 cm hayen agra bahu ke pichh. e bahg par-kohni se 6 1/2 cm. ooper. 25. Nilgu chot 1 x 1 cm bayen nideslian ungli ke pichle bhag par mukh ke pass niche ki haddi tuti hai. 26. Kata ghav 1 1/2 x 1/2 cm aar paar bayenhath ke anguthe ke sirepar-kewal khal mans kata hai. 27. Kata ghav 7 x 2 x 4 1/2 cm dhane kandhey par ooper bahar (aage piche dishaen men) haddi niche kati hai. 28. Kata ghav 6 x 1/2 x 1 cm khari aari disha mein dahni ooper chhati va dahne oopari kandhey par chot No. 27 se 3 cm niche. 29. 27. Kata ghav 7 x 2 x 4 1/2 cm dhane kandhey par ooper bahar (aage piche dishaen men) haddi niche kati hai. 28. Kata ghav 6 x 1/2 x 1 cm khari aari disha mein dahni ooper chhati va dahne oopari kandhey par chot No. 27 se 3 cm niche. 29. Patla kata ghav 9 cm khari aari disha men chot No. 28 se 4 1/2 cm niche dahne oopari chhaati. 30. Nilgu chot 6 x 1 cm pari aari disha men dahne bahri kahdhey par. 31. Kata ghav 4 1/2 x 3/4 x 1 cm dahni hatheli ke pichle bhag par-anguthey ke niche khari aari disha mein. 32. Nilgu chot 5 x 1 cm bayen bahri takhne par khari disha. 33. Nilgu chot (chhipi) 5 1/2 x 3/4 bayen paanv parooper bahar. According to the doctor Krishan Kumar Shinghal P. W. 4 the age of the deceased was about 35 years and about 1 1/2 days had passed since the death at the time of post-mortem examination. He fur ther opined that the ante-mortem injuries could have been caused on the night of 16/17-8-1977 at mid night and the ante-mortem injuries were sufficient in the or dinary course of nature to cause death and the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage which happened on account of ante-mortem injuries. Gaya Dutt Pan-dey had taken the sealed dead body of Manohar Lal from village Kandhaipur to Lucknow Medical College on 17-8-1977 for post-morteim examination as evidence from Ex. ka-1. 10. Mohd. Rauf P. W. 7 is the formal witness. 11. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case as stated above. 12. Dr. D. V. Singh P. W. was posted as Additional Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Intauja, Lucknow on 17-8-1977 and on this day at 10. 15 a. m. He examined the injuries of Smt. Roop Rani and prepared injury report whose copy is Ex. K. a-14. He found the following injuries on the person of Smt. Roop Rani: 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep over forehead 4 cm above left eye-brow. 2. Swelling 2cm x 1 cm over upper lip. 3. Swelling 2 cm x 1 cm over lower lip. 4. Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm over back in lumber region. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep over forehead 4 cm above left eye-brow. 2. Swelling 2cm x 1 cm over upper lip. 3. Swelling 2 cm x 1 cm over lower lip. 4. Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm over back in lumber region. According to the opinion of doctor D. V. Singh P. W. 6 these injuries were caused by blunt object and were simple and were about 10 hours old at the time of the examination and these injuries could have been caused on the night of 16/17-8-1977 at mid night and injury No. 1 could have been caused by blunt portion of Karoli. 13. Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 is an eye witness of the incident. She as stated that her Maika is in Kandhaipur and her Sasural is in village Arhara, district Barabanki and her husband started resid ing in his Sasural since 10-12 vears and her husband Manohar Lal was killed. She has further stated that Chheda is brother of her father and Chheda had no issue and Chheda had given his property to Nanha who was her Bhanja earlier out sub sequently Chheda and her Bhanja Nanha could not maintain their good relations and that is why Chheda had executed a Will in favour of her husband and Nanha had felt this and the accused Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu were helpers of Nanha. She has further stated that before 3 months of the incident, the accused Ishwar Din, Ram Nath and Nanha had assaulted her husband by entering into her house and a report was lodged in respect of this incident and the case is respect of which is pending. She has further stated that 2years and 3 months ago, she and her daughter Raj Kishori and her small child were sleep ing in the courtyard of the house in the night and her husband was sleeping in the Tarwaha and that Tarwaha was in the courtyard and a lantern was hung in that and which was burning and at about mid night Dwarka accused had called her hus band from out side and said that "your cow has released herself and tie her". She was further stated that she got her husband awaken and had narrated him the said talk of Dwarka and her husband had opened the door and then Dwarka with Banka, Ram Nath with Banka, Ishwar Din with Banka, Jhabbu with Karoli, Ram Khilavan, Nand Ram, Nattha, Chhanga, Babu and Sohan Lal with Lathis and Dan-das entered in her house and these persons started assaulting her husband by their weapons and she raised alarm and ran to save her husband and Jhabbu assaulted her by Karoli and Ram Khilavan, Nand Ram and Sohan Lal had assaulted her by Lathi and Ram Khilavan, Nand Ram and Sohan Lal (sic) caught hold of her and Ram Nath, Dwarka and Ishwar Din began to assault her husband and the accused after assault ing her husband ran away and after that Jawala, Mathura and Chheda had come. She has further stated that 10-12 houses are in her Purva and Dwarka and Nattha are real brothers and Nand Ram is nephew of Ishwar Din and Sohan Lal is son of Dwarka and Dwarka, Ram Naih, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu are cousins and Ram Khilavan is the Bhanja of Ram Nath and Babu is relative of Ram Nath and Chhanga is brother-in-law (looser) of Sohan Lah She has further stated that she could not go in the night to lodge the report on account of fear. She has further stated that on account of this fact that she was alone and. therefore, she could not go to lodge the report in the night and her father-in-law came before sun rise and his name is Chhotey Lal andshe had gone to the police station with him and got the report Ex. Ka-1 dictated there and her medical ex amination had also taken place. 14. Raj Kishori P. W. 2 is also an eye witness of the incident and is daughter of the deceased. Oath was not administered to her as she was not knowing about oath. She had given her age as 10 years when her statement was recorded on 20-11-1979. The incident happened on 17-8-1977. Ii means that she was less than 8 years of age at the time of the incident. She has stated that she has one brother Chheda is her maternal grand-father and she has no maternal uncle and her father was the resi dent of village Arhara and she has passed class-1. The incident happened on 17-8-1977. Ii means that she was less than 8 years of age at the time of the incident. She has stated that she has one brother Chheda is her maternal grand-father and she has no maternal uncle and her father was the resi dent of village Arhara and she has passed class-1. She has further stated that she knows Jhabbu, Sohan, Ishwar, Nand Ram, Babu, Khilavan, Nattha, Ram Nath, Dwarka and Changa and Chhanga and Babu are the resident of another village and the remaining accused persons belong to her village. She has further stated that her father was killed in the night and on that night she and her mother were sleep ing in the courtyard and her father was sleeping beneath the Chhapra and a lantern was burning and her mother cried then she saw that the accused Ram Nath, Dwarka and Jhabbu were assaulting her father and Jhabbu had Karoli, Ram Nath had Banka and Dwarka had Banka and the remaining accused had lathis and dandas and Ram Khilavan, Nand Ram and Sohan had caught hold of her mother and after assaulting, all the accused had run away and Jhabbu had assaulted her mother by Karoli and her mother and father received injuries and her father had died and her father was assaulted inside Tarwaha where lantern was. 15. We have heard the learned coun sel for appellants and the learned addi tional public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment rendered by the learned Court below, on the other hand the learned addi tional public prosecutor has supported the judgment given by the Court below. The learned counsel for the appellants has con tended that the F. l. R. was not lodged when it is said to have been lodged and it was lodged subsequently with consultation and deliberation and it was any timed and therefore, the F. l. R. lodged in this case loses its importance and it cannot be used for corroborating the statement of com plainant Roop Rani. According to the prosecution the incident happened on night of 16/17-8-1977 at about mid-night and the F. l. R. was lodged on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. and the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was seven miles. According to the prosecution the incident happened on night of 16/17-8-1977 at about mid-night and the F. l. R. was lodged on 17-8-1977 at 9. 30 a. m. and the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was seven miles. Roop Rani P. W. 1 has stated in her cross-examination that at about 8-9 a. m. She proceeded for the police station from the house on foot. It means that at about 8-9 a. m. she proceeded from her house for lodging the F. l. R. and she had gone to the police station on foot and therefore, it was difficult for her to reach the police station before 9. 30 a. m. Panchayat Nama Ex. Ka-4 was prepared by the investigating officer and in this panchayatnama crime number, sections of the I. PC. under which the case was registered had not been given. Challan lash Ex. Ka-6 was prepared by the inves tigating officer and in this Challan lash crime number, sections of the I. PC. under which the case was registered had not been given. Letter Ex. ka-7 was written for post mortem examination and in this letter also crime number, sections of the I. PC. under which the case was registered had not been given. Ex. Ka-10 the memo which was prepared when the clothes etc. from the dead body were taken in possession by the investigating officer. In this memo also, crime number and sections of the I. P. C. under which the case was registered had not been given. Memo Ex. Ka-11 was prepared when ordinary earth and blood stained earth were taken in possession by the investigating officer and in this paper also crime number and sections of the I. P. C. under which the case was registered had not been given. Ex. Ka-12 is a memo and this memo was prepared when the portion of the Kiwar which was blood stained was taken in possession by the investigating officer by getting out it cut and in this paper also crime number and sections of the I. P. C. under which the case was registered had not been given. The investigating officer had prepared the said paper after registration of the case. The investigating officer had prepared the said paper after registration of the case. Ac cording to the prosecution the F. I. R. was lodged and the case was registered before the investigating officer had gone to the spot and relevant and necessary paper were with the investigating officer at the time of the preparation of the said papers according to the prosecution. It means that copy of the F. I. R. and copy of the G. D. of the registration of the case were with the investigating officer at the time of prepara tion of the said papers. If the copy of the F. I. R. and copy of the G. D. in which the case was registered were with the I. O. at the time of preparation of the said papers then the investigating officer should have mentioned crime number and sections of the I. P. C. under which the case was registered in the said papers but this had not been done and necessary inference is that when the said papers were prepared at that time F. I. R. was not in existence, Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 who is the inves tigating officer has stated in cross-ex amination that crime number could not have been mentioned in Ex. ka-11 and Ex. ka-12 accidentally. This explanation does not appear to be correct. Because crime number and sections of the I. P. C. under which the case was registered had not been given in the said papers therefore, it would mean that the F. I. R. was not in existance, when the said papers were preparred. Cer tain omissions of the F. I. R. were put to Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 who is the com plainant and she stated in her cross-ex amination that the report was read over to her and she does not remember that whatever she dictated that was written in the F. I. R. or not and the report was written before noon. This statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 also reveals that she is not owning the F. I. R. completely. This statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 also reveals that she is not owning the F. I. R. completely. This is clear that the F. I. R. was not lodged when it is said to have been lodged and it was lodged subsequently after consultation and deliberation and it was ante-timed and therefore, the F. I. R. lodged in this case loses its importance and cannot be used for corroborating the statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 who is the complainant. The said contention of the learned counsel for appellant is correct. 16. The learned counsel for appel lant, has further contended that the appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime of this case. Accused Sohan Lal and Nand Ram were given benefit of doubt and they were acquitted. According to the statement of Roop Rani, P. W. 1 Chedda was her uncle and he had no issue and Chheda wanted to give his property to Nanha who was his Bhanja earlier but subsequently Chheda and Nanha could not maintain their good relations and therefore, Chheda executed a Will in favour of her husband and Nanha had felt this and the accused Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu were helpers of Nanha and before three months of this incident Nanha, Ram Nath and Ishwar Din had assaulted her husband and a report was lodged in respect of this incident and a case is respect of which is pending and on ac count of the said litigation the accused became inimical with the deceased and this enmity was the motive for the accused to commit the murder of Manohar Lal. Ex. Ka- 15 is the copy of the report lodged by Manohar Lal against Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Nanha on 3-2-1977 at about 8. 30 of the incident which happened on 2-2-1977 at 8. Ex. Ka- 15 is the copy of the report lodged by Manohar Lal against Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Nanha on 3-2-1977 at about 8. 30 of the incident which happened on 2-2-1977 at 8. 00 p. m. and this report was lodged under Sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. It means that Manohar Lal deceased had lodged a report against the said persons under Sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. before the incident of this case and the case which arose on account of the said report is pend ing according to the statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 and as the said case was pending, therefore, these persons could have grievance against Manohar Lal deceased and they had enmity with Manohar Lal. According to statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 accused Dwarka and Nattha are real brothers and Nand Ram is nephew of Ishwar Din and Sohan Lal is son of Dwarka and Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din and Jhabbu are cousins and Ram Khilavan is Bhanja of Ram Nath and Babu is relative of Ram Nath and Chhanga is brother-in-law (looser) of Sohan Lal. This statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 suggests that all the accused persons were related with each other and therefore, the appellants had enmity with deceased Manohar Lal. Enmity is double edged weapon on account of enmity the appellants could have been falsely impli cated in the case and on account of enmity the appellants could have committed the crime of this case. The accused appellants had enmity with the accused Manohar Lal deceased and therefore, they had motive to commit the crime of this case but the mo tive in this case is not material as here is an ocular evidence. 17. The accused appellants had enmity with the accused Manohar Lal deceased and therefore, they had motive to commit the crime of this case but the mo tive in this case is not material as here is an ocular evidence. 17. The learned counsel for the ap pellants has further contended that prosecution witnesses of fact namely Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 were not truthful witnesses and the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the appel lants beyond reasonable doubt and there fore, the learned Court below was not jus tified in placing reliance upon the state ments of the said witnesses and was also not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants under in sections in which the appellants were convicted and sen tenced and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. The learned additional public prosecutor on the other hand has submitted that Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 were truthful and reliable witnesses and therefore, the learned Court below was justified in placing reliance upon the statements of the said witnesses and was also justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 18. The death of Manohar Lal is homicidal and this fact has not been dis puted by the appellants. According to the prosecution the incident of the case hap pened in the night of 16/17-8-1977 at mid night inside the house of Manohar Lal deceased. The statement of doctor Krishan Kumar P. W. 4 and the post-mor tem report prepared by him reveal that murder of Manohar Lal was committed in the night of 16/17-8-1977 at mid-night. The time and place of incident have not been disputed by the appellants. Thus murder of Manohar Lal was committed in the night of 16/17-8-1977 at mid-night in side the house of Manohar Lal deceased. 19. The accused Sohan Lal and Hand Ram were acquitted by the trial Court by giving them benefit of doubt. The incident happened in the night and therefore, this has to be seen that Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 were in a position to recognise the assailants and as they were living in the house with deceased Manohar Lal and therefore, they were natural witnesses. The incident happened in the night and therefore, this has to be seen that Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 were in a position to recognise the assailants and as they were living in the house with deceased Manohar Lal and therefore, they were natural witnesses. According to statement of Smt. Roop Rani P. W. 1 the appellants and the said two acquitted accused entered in her house after the door was opened by deceased Manohar Lal and had assaulted the deceased Manohar Lal on the date and time of incident under the house and in juries were also caused to her in the inci dent and the appellant Dwarka had a Banka, appellant Ram Nath had Banka and Ishwar Din too had Banka and Jhabbu had Karoli and the other appellants and acquitted accused had lathi and dandas and these persons had assaulted the deceased Manohar Lal by their weapons. Her statement further shows that when she proceeded for saving her husband, then Jhabbu had assaulted her by Karoli and Ram Khilavan and Sohan Lal had assaulted her by lathis and Ram Khilavan and Nand Ram and Sohan Lal had caught hold of her. Her statement further shows that she, her daughter Raj Kishori and small child were sleeping in the courtyard and her husband was sleeping in the Tar-waha and that tanvaha was in the courtyard and a lantern was hung in the Tarwaha which was burning. She did not state any other light except the light of Ian tern at the time of the incident. The learned Court below disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution regarding the light of lantern and according to the trial Court there was absolutely no light at the time of the inci dent and we find that the trial Court was justified in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution regarding burning of the lantern at the time of the incident. The learned Court below disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution regarding the light of lantern and according to the trial Court there was absolutely no light at the time of the inci dent and we find that the trial Court was justified in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution regarding burning of the lantern at the time of the incident. Smt. Roop Pani P. W. 1 has stated that the door of her house is towards west and there is a chhapper outside her said door and there is a Chhappar on the wall of the said door towards inside her house and a lantern was not burning inside the inner Chhapper and towards east of the said Chhapper court yard is and a lantern was burning in Tar waha which is towards east of the court yard and lantern was hung by a rope and when daroga came then the lantern was hung at thesaid place and se had shown the place to daroga where the lantern was hanging at the time of the incident. The said statement of Roop Rani P. W. 1 suggest that lantern was hanging by a rope in Tar waha which was towards east of the court yard and was burning. 20. According to the statement of Raj Kjshori P. W. 2 her father who was assaulted in Tarwaha where there was lantern. Her statement further shows that lantern was tied by a rope and was hung in the Chhap par. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 has Mated that he found lantern at the place which was hung on a peg and he has shown th. -. t place by letter (6) in the site plan and on the said place Roop R;. ni had told him that lantern was burning and she did not tell that lantern was tied by rope and was hang ing. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 had shown the place of lantern by letter (6) in the sue plan where the lantern was hung on a peg and this place was towards west inside the Chhappar. The statements of Roop Rani P. W. land Raj Kishori P. W. 2 are contradic tory regarding the place where lantern was said to be hung at ti e time of the incident. The statements of Roop Rani P. W. land Raj Kishori P. W. 2 are contradic tory regarding the place where lantern was said to be hung at ti e time of the incident. Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 had found that lantern was hung on a peg towards west in the house inside the Chhappar while ac cording to the statement of Roop Rani P. W. 1 the lantern was burning in Tarwaha which was towards east of the courtyard. According to the statements of Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 lantern was tied by a rope and was hanging while the statement of Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 shows that the lantern was hung on a peg and this state of affairs suggests that no lantern was burning at the time of the incident inside the house of the com plainant and the statements of Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2and Gotendra Pal Singh P. W. 5 are contradictory regard ing the place where the lantern was hung. The learned Court below was justified in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecu tion regarding burning of the lantern in side the house of the complainant at the time of incident. Thus there was complete darkness inside the house of the com plainant when the incident had taken place. 21. According to the statement of Roop Rani P. W. 1 as soon as the door was opened, the appellants and the other ac quitted accused started assaulting her hus band and her husband ran inside the house and the accused chased him and had killed him inside the Tarwaha and she was as saulted after husband was assaulted. The statement of her cross-examination shows that Ram Khilavan and Nand Ram had caught hold of her and Sohan Lal had assaulted of her by fist and Ram Khilavan and Nand Ram had not assaulted her and after assaulted fist she was assaulted by Karoli and no one had assaulted lathi and the statement made in this Court that Ram Khilavan and Sohan Lal had assaulted her by lathi, that statement was written given by her and she cannot told that how the said statement was written. Knmerly Roop Rani P. W. 1 stated that Rani Khilavan and Sohan Lal had as saulted her by lathi and subsequently she-changed her statement and stated that she-did not give the statement that she was assaulted by Ram Khilavan and Sohan Lal. She subsequently stated incross-examination that Sohan Lal had assaulted her by lists. The statement given by Roop Ram P. W. I regarding her assault is self con tradictory and shows that she could not recognise the assailants as there was com plete darkness in the house where the inci dent had taken place. She also stated that she was assaulted by Karoli after she was assaulted by fists and Jhabbu had assaulted her by Karoli. If Roop Rani P. W. was assaulted by Karoli then Roop Ram PW. 1 should have received injury which could have been caused by Karoli but Roop Rani P. W. 1 did not receive any injury which could have been caused by Karoli and this state of affairs suggests that Roop Rani P. W7. 1 is not a truthful witness. Roop Rani P. W. 1 did not state that the appellants and the acquitted accused were talking 01 were saying anything at the time of the incident and therefore, it was not possible for Roop Rani P. W. 1 to identify the appellants by voice. There was no light inside the house at the time of the incident but she stated about the participation of each accused in the incident. She also stated that what weapon the appellants had at the time of the incident and this suggests that she has given her statement on imagination as in complete darkness it was not possible for Roop Rani P. W 1 to recognise the as sailants and their weapons. According to the statement of Roop Rani P. W 1, Ram Khilavan and Nand Ram and Sohan La) had caught hold of her at the time of incident. Sohan Lal and Nand Ram were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. This also suggests that her statement regarding the presence of Sohan Lal and Nand Ram was not believed by the Court below. Sohan Lal and Nand Ram were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. This also suggests that her statement regarding the presence of Sohan Lal and Nand Ram was not believed by the Court below. Roop Rani P. W. 1 as stated in cross-examination that Daroga had proceeded for the spot when she was in the police station and after that she had gone for medical examination and when she reached after medical ex amination then Daroga was present at the spot. This statement given by Roop Rani P. W. I is false as the investigating officer was not present at the police station when she dictated the F. I. R. in the police station and this also suggests that she is not a truthful witness. 22. According to the statement of Roop Rani P. W. 1 Dwarka accused had said to her husband from out side of the house that his cow has been released and he should lie that cow and then she got her husband awaken and had told him what Dwarka had said and then her husband had opened the door. This statement which was given by Roop Rani P. W. 1 can also not be believed as she was given her statement which is self contradictory. It appears that Roop Rani P. W. 1 could not identify the assailants on account of complete dark ness in the house and therefore, it is not safe to place reliance upon her statements and she does not appear to be a truthful witness. 23. Raj Kishori P W. 2 is the daughter of the deceased Manohar Lal. She was less than 8 years of age at the time of the incident. 23. Raj Kishori P W. 2 is the daughter of the deceased Manohar Lal. She was less than 8 years of age at the time of the incident. According to her statement she knows the accused and her father was killed in the night and she and her mother in that night were sleeping in the court yard and her father was sleeping beneath the Chhappar and she awoke after hearing the cry of her mother and her father was being assaulted by Ram Nath, Dwarka and Jhabbu and Jhabbu had a Karoli and Ram Nath and Dwarka had Bankas and the remaining accused had lathi and dandas and Ram Khilavan and Nand Ram and Sohan Lal had caught hold of her mother and after assaulting the accused had run away and Jhabbu hadassaulted hermother by Karoli and her father and mother received injuries and her father had died and the father was assaulted beneath the Tarwaha where lantern was. She stated in her cross- examination that her mother was assaulted before she awoke and when she awoke then she saw that three persons had caught hold of her mother and her lather was being assaulted. According to the statement of Roop Rani P. W. 1 her husband was assaulted first and after that she was assaulted but Raj Kishori P. W. 2 stated that her mother was assaulted first and after that her father was assaulted. This contradictions proves that Raj Kishori P. W. 2 also could not see the as sailants at the time of the incident as there was complete darkness in the house. She also stated that Jhabbu had caught Karoli from the side of mooth and Jhabbu had assaulted her mother by raising his hand. When Raj Kishori P. W. 2 did not see anyone assaulting her mother then how she had given the said statement is not understandable. Her mother did not receive any injury of Karoli. She is a child witness and it appears that she had been tutored as -it was not possible for her to recognise the assailants in the complete darkness. Thus Raj Kishori P. W. 2 is also not a truthful witness. 24. The appellants filed a copy of the order of panchayat revision No. 44 of 1960 and which is Ex. Kha-1. This order was passed on 5-7-1961 by Munsif Hawaii, Lucknow. It does not prove anything. Thus Raj Kishori P. W. 2 is also not a truthful witness. 24. The appellants filed a copy of the order of panchayat revision No. 44 of 1960 and which is Ex. Kha-1. This order was passed on 5-7-1961 by Munsif Hawaii, Lucknow. It does not prove anything. The appellants also examined Ram Dulari as D. W. 1 in their defence. According to her statement she was Up- Pradhan of village Umravan and she was looking after the work of Pradhan. According to her state ment she knows the accused and the deceased Manohar Lal who was murdered and at that time she was looking after the work of Pradhan and after hearing the noise of the murder of Manohar Lal at 10. 30 p. m. She had gone to his house at 11. 00 p. m. and she could not know that who were the assailants. Her statement was disbelieved by the Court below and we find that she was rightly disbelieved by the learned Court below. 25. Roop Rani P. W. 1 and Raj Kishori P. W. 2 are truthful witnesses and they could not recognise the assailants of the deceased Manohar Lal and Roop Rani P. W 1 at the lime of the incident as there was complete darkness in the house and therefore, it is not safe to place reliance upon the statements of the said witnesses. We accordingly place no reliance upon the statements of the said witnesses. The prosecution was not able to prove ils case against the appellants beyond reasonable-doubt and therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants as stated above. The learned Court below was also not justified in placing the reliance on the statements of the said witnesses as they were not truthful witnesses. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, this criminal appeal deserved to be al lowed and the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants should be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. 26. This criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants are set aside and the appellants Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Ram Khilavan, Nattha, Babu and Chhanga are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. They are on bail. 26. This criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants are set aside and the appellants Dwarka, Ram Nath, Ishwar Din, Jhabbu, Ram Khilavan, Nattha, Babu and Chhanga are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. They are on bail. Their bail bounds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .